My opponent and I both value saving lives. Whoever saves more lives wins this debate.

---

Contention One: Alternative Plan

Subpoint A. Deaths in the United StatesMy opponent states that "Guns ... are they main cause of deaths in the United States of America."

However, heart disease accounts for 616,067 deaths annually in the United States, according to the CDC [1], and according to Zipes and Wellens, sudden cardiac arrest accounts for 300,000-400,000 of those deaths [2]. Sudden cardiac arrest is not always predictable, except for those who know themselves to be at high risk.

In contrast, all firearm deaths account for 32,163 deaths annually, according to GunPolicy.org [3].

Subpoint B. Political CapitalSeeing as heart disease kills more people than and still has much of the unpredictability and negative consequences of firearms, it would be better to spend political, economic, and human capital to attempt to end or reduce heart disease and sudden cardiac arrest.

This is because persuading Congress to legislate this totalitarian action and to persuade the American people to hand over 270,000,000-310,000,000 guns [3] would require serious political capital that would probably destroy a politician's (or multiple politicians') political career(s), especially if it failed.

This political capital could be much more easily spent persuading Congress to spend more money on heart disease research and the American people to accept a very, very mild income tax increase.

Subpoint C. Economic and Human CapitalFurther, melting down all guns would either require (a) buying back all guns from their owners, at a cost of about $150,000,000,000 [4], or $9 billion more than is spent on education at the federal level annually [5], which is a lot of money, or (b) militarily seizing all guns, which would require a lot of military activity, usage of government guns and ammunition, and probably the deaths of gun fanatics before their guns were seized. Because we know that many, many people are survivalists or paranoid about a totalitarian government takeover, and this would seems exactly like that. How would they respond? With guns and bullets, leading to their deaths and the deaths of soldiers.

In contrast, nobody is vehemently anti-cardiac-research (I think), and doesn't come with a $150,000,000,000 price tag.--

Summary:Melting all guns will lead to further loss of human life OR to massive economic cost, while researching to end cardiac disease will lead to less loss of human life and save money.

fuzzy. America is 4th in the world in gun violence. If you take Detroit, Chicago, new Orleans, and washingtonD.C. out of the mix, we are 24th.You know what these have in common. Gun free zones. And another thing they have in common. All run exclusively by dumocrats.Their tax and spend policies are what drives poverty.

Why do the rich leave. Would you stay if as you get richer the target on your back also grows.They are not stupid.They do not go to work to support people who do not work for them,unless they choose to give to charity. Thus the democrat mantra, tax and spend, is what drives poverty.And it is the freeloaders who put them in office.

They are impoverished because democrats run those places. It is the peoples fault, not anyone elses that poverty is rampant.We the people. If they would throw those democrat bums out of there then prosperity would return. These places are gun free zones. That is my point. Even poor people should have the right to defend themselves.The second amendment extends to them also if they didn't have the democrat bums stopping it from being a right.

I have never seen a gun jump up and kill someone.It is the criminal that uses guns. But that would not stop them by taking them away. And melting down all guns is unrealistic. Just like having a nuclear free world. Will never happen. That genie has been let out and will never be put away.The only way we can minimize the dangers of guns if for good people to be armed. Peace through strength.Gun free zones produces the most gun violence. Heavily armed neighborhoods , like mine, have the least amount of violence.As long as our government is armed, we need the second amendment. It has been said that America is fourth in the world in gun violence. But if you take Detroit, Wash. D.C. ,Chicago, and New Orleans, democrat liberal strongholds, out of the mix, we are twenty fourth.

Reasons for voting decision: Vote based on forfeits alone.
According to pro's facts, pro's first solution saves over 32,000 lives per year.
"firearm deaths account for 32,163 deaths annually"
"melting down all guns would either require (a) buying back all guns from their owners, at a cost of about $150,000,000,000"
It's not about where the money should be spent, its about where the money will come from. Since imaginary money can't be spent.
Statistically, the money would most likely come from the military budget (as it takes up over 50% of the budget).
It could be true that this will save lives internationally and domestically with less deployment. Some guns & much ammo purchased could also be of use to the military. Budgets would return to normal the following year.
Also, It's unlikely that military seizure would annually take the lives of over 32,000 gun owners; A gun owner killing a soldier further proves con's point. But con didn't argue, pro did, so pro wins.

Reasons for voting decision: Con showed that he did not have much to say at all by first a one-liner and then four forfeits. Also, Pro sufficiently disproved first the problem, and the viability of the solution. He was also the only one to provide evidence. This round clearly goes to Pro.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.